House Passes War Bill: $162B More For The Destruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan

The House of Representatives [sic] has passed a bill which would fund the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan well beyond the twice-unelected president's scheduled date of departure. And that's the good news.

Republicans [...] applauded the passage of another war funding bill without a deadline for troop withdrawals, something Pelosi and many Democrats had sought [sic] since early last year.

"The measure provides this critical funding without bogging it down with politically motivated surrender language," Boehner said.

"Politically motivated surrender language"! These monsters are so transparent, they'd make me laugh if their actions weren't so deplorable. But that's the good news.

And now the bad news: the Democrats are calling it a victory!

Included in the bill that funds continued war without a deadline, are three provisions which president Bush has already threatened to veto. With apparent support for an override in Congress, the House has "stood up" to the president on those points.

"He is reversing three distinct veto threats and signing them into law. If that ain't a victory, I don't know what is," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus [photo].

Bush can reverse any of those clauses with signing statements, so what difference does it make to him?

The bottom line: the Democrats, who control the House of Representatives [sic] and therefore the national purse-strings, have chosen to spend another $162 billion -- $540 per person -- over the next year, to keep killing people you've never met, in wars of aggression in foreign countries, which are being fought on false pretexts. And

"If that ain't a victory, I don't know what is,"

according to the so-called leader of the so-called opposition party.

Nothing in my lifetime, and probably nothing in American history, has shown as clearly as the so-called Global War On Terror just how easily corruptible and utterly corrupt the American political system is.

But even having seen it -- even seeing it more clearly every day -- we continue to drift along, sliding ever closer to the edge of a horrible abyss.

What's another $162 billion? How many more innocent people will that kill? Enough?

No! It's never enough! Next year they'll need more, and they'll need even more than they needed this year. And even if we've got a Democratic president, even if we've got a solidly Democratic Congress, will they dare to vote against it?

You must be joking.

This is the same Rahm Emanuel who denied funding and national exposure to any Democrat who was fortunate enough to win a primary but not smart enough to toe the party line. So Bob Bowman (who supports 9/11 truth) and Clint Curtis (who supports electoral integrity) were on their own for the general election, while Cynthia McKinney (who supports both) was torpedoed in the primary.

And he's running the national Democratic caucus.

All we can do at this point is drop to our knees and beg for mercy.

Arizona Congressman Arraigned For Corruption; Party Affiliation A Secret

Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi [photo] pleaded not guilty Tuesday to federal charges including insurance fraud, extortion and money laundering.

Lupita Murillo reports for KVOA News 4 Tucson:

Congressman Renzi arraigned in federal court

On February 21, Renzi and his former business partners were indicted after a lengthy investigation.

It focused on the land development and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.

Renzi and his business partners James Sandlin and Andrew Beard are all accused of concealing at least $733,000 that Renzi allegedly took for helping seal the land deals.

Renzi and Beard are also accused of embezzling more than $400,000 in insurance premiums to fund Renzi's first congressional campaign.

Renzi says he's not resigning his position. That's the message congressman Rick Renzi sent to his constitutients from court.

Congressman Renzi sat stoically next to his attorneys as he entered his 'not guilty' plea.

The judge released Renzi on a promise to appear in court and didn't set bond.

Renzi was ordered by the judge to stop at the U.S. Marshall's office to be fingerprinted and photographed.

Outside the courthouse, Renzi and his team of attorneys were met by the media. Renzi's attorney did all the talking.

Reid Weingarten told the media, "There is a presumption of innocence in this country and it applies to congressmen. And Congressman Renzi is fully prepared to continue serving his constitutients [sic] while we fight for his rights in court. And there's plenty of rights to be fought for."

The FBI spent 26,000 man-hours on this case.

Prosecutors declined to comment.

I don't mind commenting.

How is it that I can read this whole article without once finding any allusion to the name of the political party to which Rick Renzi is attached?

Why can I go to his website, and read "About Rick", and still find no mention of his party affiliation?

Could it be because he's an elephant? YES.

Are the elephants so rotten that they no longer publicly identify themselves as such? YES.

Are the American "news" media sufficiently corrupt to go along with this distortion-by-omission? YES.

If the indicted congressman were a donkey, would the media be singing a different tune? OF COURSE.

Anybody who didn't get all these answers on the first try is welcome to stay late today for some review.

As for presumption of innocence, there are more than 350 people incarcerated at Gitmo who have never even been charged with any crime of any nature, let alone betrayal of the supposedly sacred trust of public service. Some of them were captured by lawless tribesmen when they tried to escape the American bombing of their homeland, then sold into eternal captivity. And they aren't entitled to any presumption of innocence. They aren't entitled to anything -- not even a hearing!

So why does "presumption of innocence" apply to a congressman who's been indicted after 26,000 man-hours of investigation, and against the prevailing political winds, when it doesn't apply to people who have never even been charged?

Because "presumption of innocence", like every other aspect of the rule of law, is now a political weapon, to be used against enemies of the regime, and on behalf of their friends. Pakistan is the model.

House Republicans Walk Out To Protest Contempt Charges

The (Democratically-controlled) House of Representatives has cited two Bush aides -- Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers -- as being in contempt of Congress for their refusal to fulfill their legal obligations to a Congressional investigation into the hiring and firing of federal prosecutors. Josh Bolten failed to turn over subpoenaed documents; Harriet Miers failed to appear after she was subpoenaed to testify; in both cases, their contempt of Congress has seemed quite clear, and this move to cite them comes as no surprise.

In response, Republican House members, showing their deep respect for the Democrats in particular and the Rule of Law in general, stormed out and staged a photo-opportunity on the steps of the Capitol!

During this photo-op, some Republicans denigrated the Congressional attempt to determine whether (or more properly, to what extent and by whom) the Department of Justice has been transformed into a partisan political weapon.

Instead they suggested in the strongest terms that the Democrats in the House should spend their time kowtowing to the twice-unelected President's demands for a grant of retroactive immunity to all the telecom companies which have broken the law at his behest.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported for the AP; excerpts and additional comments follow:

House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt

The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.

Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.

The vote was 223-32 Thursday to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.

Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law — set to expire Saturday — allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity.

If the law that's set to expire Saturday allowed the government to eavesdrop only on "those phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity", we would have less of a problem. But the law allows the government to eavesdrop at will, without even the pretense of trying to stop suspected terrorist activity. Nobody would ever know who the government had eavesdropped on, or when, or why.

In fact the Congress knows very little about the situation the administration is trying so hard to legalize. It's all so secret, they don't even know what they're voting about. It's enough to make you sick, if you think about it for more than half a second. But it's fine with some of our "representatives".

Meanwhile, the White House is making sure nothing comes of the contempt citations:

The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges.

The White House should be cited for contempt as well, of course. But the AP can't exactly say that.

It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation.

... except that the chamber wasn't exactly full, because the Republicans decided to show their lack of contempt out on the front steps.

The action, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House.

The administration has said the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution.

The administration uses the same "logic" to defend the aides and the corporations: "If they had to worry about accountability under the law, they wouldn't help us."

Rather than saying "Good! They shouldn't help you!", Congress has been changing the laws that these people have been breaking.

This has been going on and on; we are looking at only the latest example.

And this is representative government at its finest? This is the greatest democracy ever conceived?

If Congress doesn't act to enforce the subpoenas, said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, it would "be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances."

I couldn't agree more, and the AP article explains why (in the next few paragraphs). But Congress has already given its explicit consent to "the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances" -- and it's done so more than once during this presidency, so although Steny Hoyer is technically correct, there's something very hollow about his words.

A bit of context on the case:

Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department officials consulted with the White House, fired at least nine federal prosecutors and kindled a political furor over a hiring process that favored Republican loyalists.

Bush's former top political adviser Karl Rove has also been a target of Congress' investigation into the purge of prosecutors, although Thursday's measure was not aimed at him.

Karl Rove's missing about five million emails which were all supposed to be archived. The AP won't mention that, but I might.

Greg Palast, who has obtained some of those emails, says they are extremely incriminating. That's no surprise, of course; it helps to explain both the reluctance of the media to discuss the case in detail, and it helps to explain the administration's refusal to cooperate with the investigation in any meaningful way.

Fred Fielding, the current White House counsel, has offered to make officials and documents available behind closed doors to the congressional committees probing the matter — but off the record and not under oath. Lawmakers demanded a transcript of testimony and the negotiations stalled.

Are we idiots here? Are we supposed to believe that proceedings that occur "off the record and not under oath" have any validity? Are we supposed to believe that honest people with nothing to hide would refuse to cooperate with an investigation unless they could do so "off the record and not under oath"?

It's such a transparent attempt to hide wrongdoing; Fred Fielding is another one who could be cited for contempt, in my view. And so is John Boener.

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader.

I keep saying it but none of these idiot politicians will listen:

Go arrest the terrorists who want to kill us -- if they really exist!

If you know who they are and what they're planning then you shouldn't need to dessicate the Bill of Rights any further -- just go arrest them. We will thank you profusely. None of us want to die, you know.

But if you don't know who they are then you can't know what they're planning, and if this is the case then you should go directly to jail for homegrown terrorism.

We're tired of having fear used as a weapon against us. John Boehner is tired of the truth.

"Let's just get up and leave," he told his colleagues, before storming out of the House chamber with scores of Republicans in tow.

Yeah, good idea, John. That'll show the American people there's no contempt involved here. None whatsoever! And the White House can help catapult the propaganda:

"If the House had nothing better to do, this futile partisan act would be a waste of time," said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. "The 'people's House' should reflect the priorities of the American people, not the fantasies of left-wing bloggers."

The idea that a White House spokeswoman can be relied upon to "reflect the priorities of the American people" is just so absurd, given the current political situation ... that the standard horse manure from the standard sources seems like comic relief half the time -- except it's not funny.

Neither is it funny how the media keeps trying to make "wiggle room" for the criminal elite:

It's not clear that contempt of Congress citations must be prosecuted. The law says the U.S. attorney "shall" bring the matter to a grand jury.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by the word "shall" doesn't it? The word seems pretty clear to me ...

What "shall" we do? "Shall" we bring the matter before a grand jury? The law says we "shall". What "shall" we do with the matter when we bring it before the grand jury? "Shall" we initiate a prosecution? Or "shall" we just order pizza and beer?

Some historical precedent may be instructive:

The House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, but the Reagan-era Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.

The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives in that case, but the court threw out the suit and urged negotiation. The Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents.

But the Bush administration will never agree to turn over anything. They may decide to sue the House of Representatives, and they may decide to turn over a limited subset of carefully screened documents, but they will never satisfy the entire request from Congress. To do so, in their view, would be a bad move on two counts: It could lead to legal penalties; and it would set a precedent under which the White House would be seen as acknowledging its accountability to Congress as specified under the Constitution. And that's why it will never happen.

You may not have heard it here first, but I stand by my prediction.

As for the Republicans in Congress, they stand not only in contempt of Congress, but in contempt of the Rule of Law and of the Constitutional system of American government.

Their motives are clear for all to see. They're not even smart enough to pretend they don't hold our entire system of government in utter contempt.

They're not smart enough to hide this, either: The Rule of Law would impede them if they didn't undermine it -- the same as it impedes all criminals.

But justice isn't really blind; as we all know, the law impedes the rich and powerful much less than it impedes the ordinary working man. And the people -- politicians and their backers -- who are trying to strip the law of its teeth are among the wealthiest and most powerful of all.

One might think they could buy all the freedom from accountability they would ever need. But they have chosen to dismantle the Rule of Law, rather than simply purchase some freedom from it.

This gives you some idea of the magnitude of their crimes.

Homegrown Terrorism: Bush Uses Threat Of Violence To Coerce Congress

We've been up to our eyeballs in a War on Terror for the past six years and we still don't even have a good clear definition of terrorism. Fortunately, a new bill is coming to the rescue. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 defines "Homegrown Terrorism" as

the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

There are eight clauses here, each held together with the word "or". I have numbered them for future reference.

[1] "the use, planned use, or threatened use"
[2] "of force or violence"
[3] "by a group or individual"
[4] "born, raised, or based and operating primarily within"
[5] "the United States or any possession of the United States"
[6] "to intimidate or coerce"
[7] "the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof"
[8] "in furtherance of political or social objectives"

First let it be noted that clauses [4], [5], and [7] restrict the defined terrorism to that involving American targets and American terrorists. By omitting clauses [4] and [5], and removing all mention of the United States from clause [7], one could derive a slightly reasonable definition of terrorism in general:

the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual to intimidate or coerce any government, any civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This is not an excellent definition because it leaves out one element which is necessary to distinguish terrorism from warfare. Terrorism is a crime against innocent civilians. Resistance against an attacking or occupying army can hardly be called terrorism. But this omission doesn't impair the current analysis, so I won't quibble at the moment.

Let it also be noted that each clause need only be satisfied once. For example, a simple threat would be sufficient to satisfy the first clause; similarly for all the other clauses.

There are many ways in which I could select one part from each of the eight clauses, and put my selections together to form a description of some variety of homegrown terrorism. My description wouldn't cover all cases of homegrown terrorism, of course; but any incident which fit my description would be, by definition, "homegrown terrorism".

Now, look at this, from the Associated Press:

Bush Presses House on Surveillance Bill

President Bush pressured the House on Wednesday to pass new rules for monitoring terrorists' communications, saying "terrorists are planning new attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison."

Bush said he would not agree to giving the House more time to debate a measure the Senate passed Tuesday governing the government's ability to work with telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists. The bill gives phone companies retroactive protection from lawsuits filed on the basis of cooperation they gave the government without court permission — something Bush insisted was included in the bill.

"We need the cooperation of telecommunications companies," Bush said. "If these companies are subjected to lawsuits costing billions of dollars, they won't participate, they won't help us."

It is highly fanciful to believe that if companies were held accountable for breaking the law, they wouldn't break the law anymore. Nonetheless, it is very easy to understand that companies will break the law more readily if they know they won't be punished for it.

And meanwhile, President Bush is without doubt

[3] "an individual"
[4] "born, raised, and based primarily within"
[5] "the United States"

The bill he's pushing will eviscerate the rule of law -- it will make anything you do legal, no matter how depraved, if the president says he wants you to do it -- and that's why he can't drum up any support for it without invoking the fear of "new attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison".

So that's what he's been doing. He is invoking

[1] "the threatened use"
[2] "of violence"

And why?

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws. But the House did not include the immunity provision in a similar bill it passed last year.

The Senate passed its measure with bipartisan support, Bush said, and the House should pass it as well before the current law expires at midnight on Saturday, Bush said.

"The time for debate is over," he said.
...

"Congress has had over six months to discuss and deliberate," Bush said. "I will not accept any temporary extension. They have already been given a two-week extension."

And what is the point of this message?

[6] "to intimidate or coerce"
[7] "a segment of the United States population"
[8] "in furtherance of political objectives"

We know from experience that there's a double threat here. Not only has Bush threatened us all with terrorist attacks that will make 9/11 pale by comparison; he has also set up the next round of political slander: if the Democrats dare to oppose this legislation, he will say they're "soft on terror".

If I were a member of the House, I would say to the president, with all due respect (i.e. none):

Show me, in the Constitution or in any other federal law, the place where it says the president shall tell the Congress when and how to vote!

I would also say this:

Who are these "terrorists" who "are planning new attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison"?

If you know who they are and what they're planning, then have them arrested. Bring them to justice. You'll be a hero. In fact, stopping terrorists from attacking us is the only thing your administration has ever claimed to do. So bringing them to justice is not only a way to salvage some "legacy"; it's also your job.

But if you don't know who they are, then how can you know what they're planning? And if you don't know who they are and what they're planning, then your assertion that "terrorists are planning new attacks ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison" was not only a deliberate lie but also a blatant act of homegrown terrorism:

[1] "the threatened use"
[2] "of violence"
[3] "by an individual"
[4] "born, raised, and based primarily within"
[5] "the United States"
[6] "to intimidate and coerce"
[7] "a segment of the United States population"
[8] "in furtherance of political objectives"

So here's the deal, Mr. president: Either you arrest them, or we arrest you.

That's what I would say if I were in Congress.

I would also say:

The House will pass this despicable bill before midnight Saturday over my dead body!

And then they could bury me on the Monday.

Senate Votes $696 Billion More For Death And Destruction

Here's more of the type of news we've come to expect late on a Friday afternoon with holidays approaching.

According to the AP (via the New York Times),

The Senate on Friday passed a defense policy bill that would offer more help to troops returning from combat and set conditions on contractors and pricey weapons programs.

The bill does a lot of other things too, things that should never be done. But the AP can hardly afford to tell you that -- especially in the New York Times! So they spin it so hard it's more like twirling.

Typical liberal media:

The measure reflects the best Democrats could do this year on their national security agenda while holding such a slim majority.

This is hogwash, of course. The slimness of the Democratic majority is irrelevant.

The Democrats in both houses of Congress could have voted to give the war machine a hundred dollars a year if they wanted to.

But they don't.

Instead they claim they're powerless. Or they get their media whores to do it for them.

Powerless to overcome GOP objections in the Senate, the bill does not order troops home from Iraq, as Democrats would have liked.

If the Democrats really opposed the war, they would have stopped it a long time ago. All they would have had to do is vote together -- every Democrat, every time -- against any further military spending (or against anything else they didn't like).

And would be the end of it.

And there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

But instead of that -- instead of anything remotely like that, they all vote together, or nearly so, in the opposite direction!

The 90-3 vote follows House approval earlier this week and sends the measure to President Bush to sign, which he is expected to do.

I'd sign it too if I were him, even though it gives him only a year to spend $696,000,000,000. But you know he can do it, and he knows he can do it, and I'd sign it too, wouldn't you?

For the record, the Democrats still oppose the ever-increasing funding for the war machine, except when they vote, or when they talk about their priorities.

"Caring for our troops and their families must always be our top priority," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee [photo], which helped write the bill.

Ka-boom. Who cares about the voters or what they want? Who cares about the crimes against humanity being committed by this government of ours, which will continue for another year -- and much much longer, thanks to another huge cash infusion? Who cares about trying to limit the damage this rogue pseudo-president can do in his supposedly final year in office?

The Democrats do care, of course. They share our concerns about all these issues, except when it causes a conflict with their top priority.

The bill, which covers the 2008 budget year, authorizes $696 billion in military spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can catch all the gory details from the New York Times or at my other other blog.

Here's just one more short item to make your reading experience almost perfect:

Final action on the bill comes as Democrats struggle for a way to pay for combat operations overseas without appearing to support Bush's policies in Iraq.

Where'd that one come from? Must have just slipped out, I guess.

And meanwhile the most horrible crimes continue, with the clear support of both parties.

Welcome to America's priorities.

Tom Toles: Immunity For What?

Shhhh!

House Foreign Affairs Committee Defies The Decider Guy

Quick, now: what do the following have in common: Turkey, Armenia, Congress, Genocide, Arms Sales, and the War in Iraq?

You give up?

Brian Knowlton, International Herald Tribune:

Bush urges Congress to reject Armenian genocide resolution

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush and two top cabinet members urged lawmakers on Wednesday to reject a resolution describing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians early in the last century as genocide - a highly sensitive issue at a time of rising U.S.-Turkish tensions over northern Iraq.

"We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Bush said in a brief statement from the White House. "But this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror."

He spoke hours before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was to vote on the resolution. The House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi, is said to be prepared to forward the matter to the full House, where more than half the 435 members are co-sponsors.

Passage would be symbolic - but the symbolism, the administration asserts, could seriously jeopardize the delicate relationship with Turkey.

(more here, mirrored here)

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post:

White House And Turkey Fight Bill On Armenia

All eight living former secretaries of state have signed a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning that the nonbinding resolution "would endanger our national security interests." Three former defense secretaries, in their own letter, said Turkey probably would cut off U.S. access to a critical air base. The government of Turkey is spending more than $300,000 a month on communications specialists and high-powered lobbyists, including former congressman Bob Livingston, to defeat the initiative.
...

The State Department, which collected the signatures of the former secretaries of state, has lobbied against the resolution, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried and U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson calling lawmakers yesterday to "urge them not to vote for this," according to an interview Fried gave the Anatolia news agency.

The Turkish Embassy is paying $100,000 a month to lobbying firm DLA Piper and $105,000 a month to the Livingston Group, and it recently added communications specialists Fleishman-Hillard for nearly $114,000 a month, according to records filed with the Justice Department. Turkish lawmakers were on Capitol Hill yesterday, warning that passage would put military cooperation with Turkey at risk.

Meanwhile, leading the charge for the resolution are grass-roots groups such as the Armenian Assembly of America, with 10,000 members, a budget of $3.6 million last year and phone banks that are running on overtime calling members of Congress.

(more here, mirrored here)

Turkish Weekly:

Turkish-US military deals threatened by Armenian Bill

Any possible Turkish retaliation to an Armenian "genocide" resolution that the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs is expected to approve tomorrow is said to be likely to expand to include lucrative arms procurement deals between Turkey and the US.
...

The passage of the “genocide resolution” by the House alone (though it is not legally binding for the administration) is likely to have a serious negative impact on the Turkish public and to further affect the already damaged Turkey-US relations.

The most vulnerable areas in terms of possible Turkish retaliation are said to be limiting usage of the Habur border gate with Iraq for US goods, including oil and military spare parts, as well as limiting or even closing the İncirlik airbase in southern Turkey to US access. İncirlik has been heavily used by the US for its operations both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Any Turkish action to limit or close both Habur and İncirlik to US use will jeopardize US combat operations in Iraq, said an Ankara-based Western diplomat.
...

Another significant region of cooperation between Turkey and the US said to be at risk from the genocide resolution is arms procurement. Turkey was one of the leading countries in 2006 for US arms sales, totaling an estimated $2.1 billion.

Those US sales to Turkey have mostly taken place in the form of foreign military sales credits that did not involve any international tender being opened by Ankara. Turkey signed an arms deal based on foreign military sales with the US worth over $13 billion last year that involved Turkish purchase of an additional 30 F 16 fighters and Turkish participation in the US-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project.

Turkey’s Undersecretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM) has in the meantime eased contract terms and conditions for the purchase of arms through international tenders -- conditions that were mainly affecting US companies due to the Turkish request for the transfer of high technology which ran contrary to US legal restrictions.

(more here, mirrored here)

Associated Press via the Wall Street Journal:

Turkey Bombs Positions Of Suspected Kurdish Rebels

SIRNAK, Turkey -- Turkish warplanes bombed positions of suspected Kurdish rebels Wednesday, and the prime minister said preparations for parliamentary approval of a military mission against separatist fighters in Iraq were under way.

Turkish troops blocked rebel escape routes into Iraq while F-16 and F-14 warplanes and Cobra helicopters dropped bombs on possible hideouts, the Dogan news agency reported. The military had dispatched tanks to the region to support the operation against the rebel Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, in response to more than a week of deadly attacks in southeastern Turkey.

Turkish authorities also detained 20 suspected Kurdish rebels at a border crossing with Iraq, the office for the governor of Sirnak said in a statement.

The military activity followed attacks by PKK rebels that has killed 15 soldiers since Sunday and prompted Turkey's government to push for a possible cross-border offensive against separatist bases in Iraq. Turkish Kurd rebels have been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey since 1984 in a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that preparations for a parliamentary authorization for a cross-border mission were under way, but didn't say when the motion would reach the floor. A member of the governing Justice and Development Party said a request for parliamentary approval for a cross-border ground offensive was unlikely to come to the floor before the end of a four-day religious holiday on Sunday.

On Wednesday, an opposition nationalist party that has long been advocating an incursion into Iraq called on the government to swiftly take the motion to parliament and said it would back it.

If Parliament approves, the military could choose to immediately launch an operation or wait to see if the United States and its allies, jolted by the Turkish action, decide to crack down on the rebels.

A cross-border operation could hurt Turkey's relationship with the U.S., which opposes Turkish intervention in northern Iraq, a region that has escaped the violence afflicting much of the rest of the country.
...

Turkish troops targeting the guerrillas suspected escape routes in mountainous areas in Sirnak province have "squeezed" a group of about 80 rebels on Mount Gabar, in Sirnak, the Hurriyet newspaper reported. Escape routes were being bombed by helicopter gunships while transport helicopters were airlifting special commando units to strategic points.

Turkish troops were also shelling suspected PKK camps in the regions of Kanimasa, Nazdur and Sinath, in northern Iraq, from positions in Turkey's Hakkari province, just across the border, Hurriyet reported. Tanks were positioned near the town of Silopi, in Sirnak province, the paper said.

The paper said the government would impose an information blackout on its preparations for a possible cross-border offensive.

(more here, mirrored here)

Have you got all that? As far as I can tell, it boils down to a question of language. We're not supposed to call a historical crime against humanity by its rightful name because that would put a crimp in the current crime against humanity, which we are also not supposed to call by its rightful name.

So in the long run, this might be very good news:

A U.S. House committee on Wednesday defied President George W. Bush by passing a resolution calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians genocide, a step the White House warns could damage U.S. goals in the Middle East.

The measure, passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a 27-21 margin, will be sent to the House floor, where Democratic leaders say there will be a vote within weeks.

Tom Toles: August Vacation

Great Big Surprise! Bush Stonewalls On Subpoenas

President Bush has refused to comply with the subpoenas issued by two Congressional committees, but that's not a big surprise. We can even expect more of the same soon.

Will the Congress bare its teeth? Now that's a much more interesting question! Here's Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times:

Bush Asserts Executive Privilege on Subpoenas

President Bush moved one step closer to a constitutional showdown with Democrats on Thursday, as the White House asserted executive privilege in refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas for documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors.

The move prompted Democrats to accuse the White House of stonewalling, and seemed to put the legislative and executive branches on a collision course that could land them in court.

... unless the Democrats decide to cave in before then. They would call it a "compromise", of course. And the Republicans are urging them to compromise, for the good of the country, of course.

On Thursday morning, the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, telephoned the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, which had issued the subpoenas, to inform them of Mr. Bush’s decision. The president also intends to invoke executive privilege to prevent two of his former top aides, Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former political director, from testifying, officials said.

It's lovely when the President gets to decide which laws apply to which individuals. That makes us all so happy, because it is exactly at those moments that we can see most clearly that we are living in one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. And that may be only an intangible benefit, but it certainly makes it easier for us to enjoy our spacious skies and amber waves of grain.

“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path,” Mr. Fielding wrote in a letter to the committee chairmen, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan. He said the committees had issued “unfettered requests.”

The "respect" Mr. Fielding shows for Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers is very small indeed.

Mr. Conyers, in a telephone interview, called the letter “an appalling response to a reasonable question,” adding, “This is reckless; it’s a form of governmental lawlessness that is really astounding.”

Come again? Astounding lawlessness? I'd have thought that he -- John Conyers, of all people -- would be used to it by now. And maybe he is. But I suppose he has to say something!

Omens for the immediate future are ominous but not entirely unexpected:

The letter seemed to lay the groundwork for how the administration will respond to a separate, unrelated, round of subpoenas, issued by the Senate panel Wednesday to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and the Justice Department for information about the domestic eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.

Administration officials said they had not decided how to respond to those demands, but experts said it seemed clear that the White House would refuse to comply there, too.

Well of course they will fail to comply. They will fail to comply with every request that threatens them in the slightest, although they always pretend to offer something:

The White House offered lawmakers access to certain documents as well as private interviews — not under oath, and without transcripts — with top aides to Mr. Bush, including Ms. Miers, Ms. Taylor and Karl Rove, the chief political strategist. The Democrats, demanding formal testimony under oath, rejected the offer.

And of course the Democrats rejected the offer -- who running an investigation would ever accept such conditions on the questioning of witnesses -- let alone suspects?

And although government lawyers try to portray this investigation as a case with very limited ramifications, it actually threatens their bosses in a very serious way.

So ... can you spell "stonewall"? You'll be seeing that word a lot soon.

“Given the way in which both the U.S. attorney matter and the N.S.A. matter are now percolating through committees, I would be very surprised if there were not a major showdown over executive privilege,” said Peter M. Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University and an authority on executive privilege. “It might not get to court, but there will have to be some very high pressure negotiations at a very late stage to avoid that.”

Those favoring a government of laws must be hoping there won't be any late negotiations, since the pressure will undoubtedly be great and the Democrats' track record under pressure has been atrocious.

As always, the result of the dispute is going to depend in no small part on how the issues are framed, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg portrays this case as a small one:

The clash pits the Congressional right to conduct oversight — in this case, an investigation into whether the Justice Department allowed partisan politics to interfere with hiring and firing of federal prosecutors — against the president’s right to unfettered and candid advice from his top aides.

But the Congressional investigation is about much more than whether partisan politics was allowed to interfere with hiring and firing. It's really about whether (that is to say the extent to which) the Justice Department has become an instrument of partisan politics. Or at least one would hope so.

The possibilities are endless.

For instance, one relatively unexplored line of questioning goes like this: Suppose it turns out that -- as it currently appears -- eight of 93 U.S. attorneys were fired for not exerting sufficient pressure on Democratic candidates at election time. What does that say about the other 85, the ones who kept their jobs?

Stolberg sidesteps this hot potato and continues:

The next step is for Democrats to decide whether to try to negotiate with the White House or to vote on a contempt resolution, a process that could take months and would lay the groundwork for sending the matter to court. Democrats did not say Thursday how they intended to proceed, although by the sound of their comments, negotiations did not seem likely any time soon.

Personally I prefer to live in a nation of laws and therefore I hope the Democrats do not decide to negotiate at all. They should just vote the contempt resolution and be done with it. So this is probably a very unlikely outcome.

I had to laugh at a comment by Senator Leahy:

“This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances,” Mr. Leahy said.

Sorry, Senator, but they've gone way beyond Nixonian. Even Spiro Agnew didn't tell any Senators to go f-ck themselves.

Nonetheless, the scent of Watergate is now in the air, and this sets up a some very interesting possibilities. As Larisa says, "I would like to officially welcome you to Watergate..."

And in some ways her analogy is a good one. But this is different.

First of all it's a very different Congress, one divided against itself in a very different way than the population is divided. In the electorate, most people, including many nominal Republicans, oppose this President, his wars of choice, and his quest for unfettered power. But in the Congress, some (many!) nominal Democrats actually support the president and the war, and would have it last for decades, if it were their call. So they may choose to support the commander-in-chief for the duration, and all of this might be moot. We'll have to wait and see.

Second, Nixon was losing it! He was going to pieces right in his own office, pacing the floors, talking to dead presidents, praying with his accomplice in war crimes, Henry Kissinger (who couldn't wait to get out of there, especially if he had a hot date). But Bush? No problem. The Decider rocks on!

Nixon was terminally frightened of losing another election -- this fear motivated many of his excesses. So he was devastated by the loss of support from the Congressional Republican heavies. But what does Bush care? He doesn't have to stand for election again. And anyway, the electoral system is now taken care of. Bush and his friends have assurances that Richard Nixon never even hoped for.

Does any of this matter? Probably not. If the removal of eight U.S. attorneys at the same time were a routine procedure, and if everything had been done above-board, if there weren't millions of e-mails missing and stories floating around about serious attempts to subvert what remains of our Constitutional republic, there would be no need to put restrictions on Congressional oversight, and there would be no reason why administrative aides could not testify in public, with oaths and transcripts and everything else that people do in civilized countries, because the administration would have nothing to hide.

But -- even more so than the Nixon administration -- this bunch has nothing to show! So they have to resist every attempt at transparency. Of course this doesn't prevent them from howling at other governments for not being sufficiently "democratic". And only Nixon could go to China.

Even if the USA is no longer the world's greatest democracy, even if it is no longer be a democracy at all, surely it doesn't anymore matter as long as we remain the world leader in at least one equally important category. And beyond any doubt, such is the case: the USA is now -- and has been for at least six years -- the world's greatest hypocrisy!

How about that?

We're number one! We're number ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

Oversight Or Pretense? Democrats Threaten To Subpoena NSA Wiretap Documents From DoJ

What do you make of this? If I tell you what I make of it, will you promise to be surprised?

Democrats May Subpoena N.S.A. Documents

According to James Risen in the June 8, 2007 New York Times:

WASHINGTON, June 7 — Senior House Democrats threatened Thursday to issue subpoenas to obtain secret legal opinions and other documents from the Justice Department related to the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program.

If the Democrats take that step, it would mark the most aggressive action yet by Congress in its oversight of the wiretapping program and could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.

Well that appears to settle it, then. Democrats shy away from Constitutional showdowns. They prefer to cooperate with anti-constitutional legislation.

The subpoena threat came after a senior Justice Department official told a House judiciary subcommittee on Thursday that the department would not turn over the documents because of their confidential nature. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, did not assert executive privilege during the hearing.

The confidential nature of the documents is the very reason they were requested; is it ironic that this is the reason being given for not releasing them? Not in Bushzarro world, where irony -- like truth and justice -- is dead!

The potential confrontation over the documents comes in the wake of gripping Senate testimony last month by a former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, who described a confrontation in March 2004 between Justice Department and White House officials over the wiretapping program that took place in the hospital room of John Ashcroft, then attorney general. Mr. Comey’s testimony, disclosing the sharp disagreements in the Bush administration over the legality of some N.S.A. activities, has increased Congressional interest in scrutinizing the program.

At the same time, the Bush administration is seeking new legislation to expand its wiretapping powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have argued that they do not want to vote on the issue without first seeing the administration’s legal opinions on the wiretapping program.

For more on this aspect of the story, see Chris Floyd's excellent post, "The Powerful Odor of Mendacity: From Wiretaps to War", from whence I have pinched the photo by James Bovard which you see above.

James Risen continues:

“How can we begin to consider FISA legislation when we don’t know what they are doing?” asked Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, who heads the subcommittee.

Well, you can't, and that's the way [uh huh, uh huh] Bush likes it [uh huh, uh huh]. What else is new?

On May 17, after Mr. Comey’s testimony, Mr. Nadler and Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, who is the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales requesting copies of Justice Department legal opinions used to support the N.S.A. wiretapping program, as well as later documents written by top Justice Department officials that raised questions about the program’s legality in 2004. The letter also asked Mr. Gonzales to provide his own description of the 2004 confrontation.

Mr. Conyers said he had not received a response from the Justice Department. “We’re going to give him two more weeks, and then, as somebody said, it’s about time process kicks in somewhere around here,” Mr. Conyers said.

The time for "process" to "kick in" is long since past, is it not?

In an interview after the subcommittee hearing on Thursday, Mr. Bradbury said his refusal to provide the documents was not the final word from the Justice Department on the matter.

But Mr. Nadler made it clear that he did not expect the administration to comply and said he thought he would soon have to push for subpoenas.

I don't expect them to comply either, even if the documents are subpoenaed, but then again I don't expect the Democrats to support a push for subpoenas. Too dangerous! Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!

In January, the Bush administration announced that it was placing the program under FISA, meaning that it would no longer conduct domestic wiretapping operations without seeking court approval, and officials said they were ending eavesdropping without warrants.

But nobody believed them then.

Since then, the White House has said that the debate over the program is moot because it has been brought under court supervision, and the Democrats, focused on Iraq war policy, had done little to challenge such assertions. Mr. Bradbury even said Thursday that the N.S.A. program was “no longer operational.”

And nobody believes them now either, except for a few wingnuts.

Meanwhile, are the Democrats simply perfecting their faux-oversight routines, or are they actually going to pretend to do something this time?

You can call me jaded if you like, but if any good comes of any of this, I'll give you a nickel!

Tom Toles: Disclosure

Tom Toles is just too good!

On the other hand, here's a nice clean, bright, articulate, good-looking open thread for a Sunday evening ... and maybe even a Monday morning too ;-)

Anger And Wit: A Powerful Combination

Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel, formerly virtually unknown although first to declare, made a lot of sense on Thursday night in a debate I couldn't catch. Fortunately Joe Lauria of the Boston Globe had me covered, and reported that during the debate, Gravel

said the early leading Democratic candidates "frightened" him because they had taken nothing off the table, including nuclear weapons, for possible military action against Iran.

"Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?" he asked Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

"I'm not planning on nuking anybody right now, Mike," Obama replied.

"Good, then we're safe for a while," Gravel said.

He's not just funny; he's absolutely spot-on!

"This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis," he said in the debate.

No kidding, Mike! ... um ... Right ON, Senator Gravel!!

You can see more of Mike Gravel here:

Gravel has a solid anti-war history but and therefore no money:

A native of Springfield, Mass., Gravel served two terms in the Senate, representing Alaska from 1969 to 1981. He made his mark as a fierce Vietnam war critic who staged a one-man filibuster that led to the end of the military draft. He drafted legislation to end funding for the war and released the Pentagon Papers, which detailed government deception over Vietnam, at the end of June 1971.
...

"He started out with less money than the cost of a John Edwards haircut," said Elliott Jacobson, Gravel's national finance director.

Gravel told reporters after the debate: "We stayed in a $55 motel. I'll hitchhike to the next debate if I have to."

He's not just anti-war and anti-Bush; he has some good ideas too:

Believing that Congress has the power to both declare and end wars, he called for a law to end the war.
...

Gravel advocates a constitutional amendment and a federal statute establishing legislative procedures for citizens to make laws through ballot initiatives.

He also supports the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and corporate and individual income taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on all new goods and services. Each month, taxpayers would receive a check to offset the tax on basic items such as food and medicine.

Whoa! No wonder I'd never heard of him! I'll be paying attention from now on, though, and so will a lot of other people.

"He's the one to say not only that the emperor has no clothes, but that the emperor wannabes have no clothes," said national pollster John Zogby, adding, "There is an angry voter. I don't know how that will take shape, it's way too early. But you got a sense why Mike Gravel is in the race on Thursday and that he is in the race."
...

The reaction to Gravel's performance has overwhelmed his campaign. His aides said they got more requests for interviews yesterday than in the first 12 months of the campaign.

Gravel's website could not handle the flood of hits after the debate, they said. Bloggers complained that they were ready to donate money but were unable to get into the website.

I'm pretty sure they'll get that fixed right away.

There's more on Mike Gravel here and here, and a tip of the frozen cap to my Australian friend Gandhi for another good catch -- and a whole passel o' great blogs: Bush Death Watch, Howard Death Watch and Riding The Juggernaut!

There's even more about Mike Gravel here, and another frozen tip to another down-under friend with another passel o' blogs: Keep an eye on Lukery and Wot Is It Good 4, Kill the Messenger, Let Sibel Edmonds Speak, and disclose, denny!

Zogby usually gets the numbers right, but he may have been misunderestimating when he said "there is an angry voter."

There are zillions of angry voters. And David Michael Green is one of them. He makes a lot of sense, too, despite (or maybe because of) the anger, in "Schadenfreude Is My Middle Name"

I’m not an angry man. But I am angry.

I’m not a bitter person. But, boy, am I bitter.

And I’m not generally given to vindictiveness. But, you know what? Right now I’m open to persuasion.

The Bush administration is now beginning an inexorable process which will change its status from the worst administration in American history to the publicly-acknowledged worst administration in American history. I, for one, couldn’t be more delighted.

That delight is only partly based on having been on the receiving end of their atrocities these last six years. And it is only partly based on the assurance that those gifts will keep giving for decades into the future, like a bad case of political herpes.

And that delight is also only partly based on their motivations and the scale of their transgressions. People who believe that the regressive right came to Washington to implement a legitimate ideology that just happens to be different from ours, or who believe that they meant well but, ironically, the first MBA president couldn’t manage his way out of an empty wading pool, even with the entire federal bureaucracy to assist him – such people fundamentally misunderstand this administration and the movement which they spearhead.

I can't run it all here, and no excerpt can do it justice. You just have to read it all. Then hang around and discuss it in the comments thread, if you will. Good points, bad points ... certainly lots of interesting points to talk about.

Senators Vow To Restore Habeas Corpus

Here's a dash of good news from Susan Cornwell of Reuters:

Influential U.S. senators vowed on Thursday to restore to foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their imprisonment, saying Congress made an historic blunder by stripping them of that right last year.

Hundreds of suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members held at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be affected.

All the other people held in U.S. military prisons could be affected, too.

The United States has drawn international criticism over its continued detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo, with human rights groups demanding the prison be closed and detainees charged with crimes or released.

It's the least one can ask of a civilized country, is it not? Or do we no longer even aspire to that status?

Last year's Congress, with a Republican majority, passed a law setting specific rules for U.S. military tribunals. It included a ban on non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" from using "habeas corpus" petitions to challenge the legality of their detention in court, asserting that military panels at Guantanamo were a substitute for court review.

They are not, of course. Not even close.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy warned that the rights of some 12 million legal aliens in the United States -- as well as any foreigners visiting the country -- had also been infringed by the new law.

Regular readers of this page may remember that the issue of illegal detention of legal aliens became a personal one last fall, when the cousin of a friend was detained without cause, without charge, and -- for far too long -- without even a hearing.

It's no stretch to imagine that the same thing could happen to any of twelve million legal residents -- indeed it has happened to many of them. Fortunately, my friend's cousin was released after "only" three weeks. But many others who were been detained for the same nonexistent reasons are still in prison. So a restoration of habeas corpus would help them as well.

It would also help the approximately 300 million American citizens whose rights have also been infringed -- by the new law combined with the president's having claimed the right to strip the citizenship (and thus the habeas corpus rights) of anyone he (or any subordinate he might deputize) may deem an "enemy combatant".

"This new law means that any of these people can be detained forever ... without any ability to challenge their detention in federal court, or anywhere else, simply on the government's say-so that they are awaiting determination as to whether they are enemy combatants," the Vermont Democrat said.

"This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American," Leahy said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would share jurisdiction on changing the law.

You can't argue about any of this unless you have a license to lie. But there are an awful lot of licensed liars to be found, especially at the five-cornered building.

A Defense Department lawyer and some committee Republicans said the law should be allowed to work and be examined by U.S. courts before Congress acts again.

It's the same old song with a different word in it. Give the war a chance! Give the surge a chance! Give the gulag a chance! Give us just one more chance to lie to you!

Are you ready for another one? Here it comes:

"Detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not criminal punishment and therefore does not require that the individual be charged or tried in a court of law," said Daniel Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon.

Unfortunately for Mr. Dell'Orto, there's much more to the story. This is not exclusively about the detention of America's enemies. This is also about the detention of people who are anything but enemy combatants. Some of them are guilty of nothing but trying to escape from the bombing of their former homelands, and were sold into captivity. But the Pentagon-licensed lawyers don't want you to know about that. Or about anything else that's really going on in the world. And neither does the administration. Fortunately, they don't yet have full control over everything.

Leahy, along with Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has introduced legislation to restore habeas corpus right to detainees.

With decades of duplicity to atone for, Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter seems to have taken a step in the right direction. On the other hand, this could simply be more duplicity on his part. After all, he is a past master.

Let us recall that during the debate on the law he now says he wants to change,

Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.

Personally, I don't trust Arlen Specter any farther than I can throw him -- and I never will. But one can always hope. And if Pat Leahy still has hope, how can any of the rest of us give up?

The Reuters report continues:

With the help of Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, "I hope we can fix this serious and corrosive problem by this summer," Leahy said.

Levin, a Michigan Democrat, agreed "we have an obligation to act now to establish a process that we can defend."

It's clear that the current setup is indefensible. And the challenge to it is way overdue.

So here's a big "HOORAY" for Senators Leahy and Levin (and a small one for Arlen Specter), and best of luck to them on this.

The gulag is one of the centerpieces of the tyranny this administration is trying to establish -- perhaps the single most important and most intimidating manifestation of their evil intentions. So this will not be an easy row to hoe. But it may be the most important one -- for now.

Articles Of Impeachment Against The Vice President

Representative Dennis Kucinich has prepared Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, as previously reported here. Highlights of the Articles follow.

The full text of the articles (in PDF form) is now available here.

The excerpts below are quoted from FULL TEXT: Articles of Impeachment of Dick Cheney by Matthew Cardinale of Atlanta Progressive News.

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
...

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction...

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002 and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002 vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda...

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents...

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran ...

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States ...

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world ...

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force...

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Your humble and slightly frozen scribe has been saying for quite some time that Bush, Cheney, et al. don't deserve impeachment.

But it would be a good first step.

Larisa: 'Rove Determined To Strike In The US'

Larisa Alexandrovna has been away -- either on vacation [?!] or chasing a big story [!?] -- and we've certainly missed her. As regular readers of her blog already know, she's also been ill, and I'm sure I speak for a great many people when I wish her better health immediately.

The good news is: She's ba-a-a-a-ck!! Savagely funny and right-on-the-mark in her latest blog item:

"Karl Rove determined to strike in the US"

Karl Rove apparently has direct access to terrorists or at least their play book, because he knows something that even experts seem not to know: what the terrorists are thinking.

"We are foolish if we think we can turn away from this threat and draw inward, and they will not come," President Bush's chief political strategist told an audience of about 400 at the Mount Union Theater. "If we lose, they will follow," he said.

I think this advice should have been taken during the end of the Nixon era in which apparently our national nightmare had just begun. Had Nixon not been pardoned, then his little mob would have likely followed him to the slammer, including Mr. Rove. Instead, "they" have followed us for the last 30+ years. But I will ask again, and continue to ask, since no member of Congress appears to have this question on the tip of his or her tongue for some odd reason: why does a political hit man running campaigns have the highest level clearances?

That question is easy to answer, at least from the point of view of those who want the political hit man to have the highest level clearances: Because knowledge is power. It's really that simple.

The more difficult question, the one Larisa is surely asking, is: Why do we allow it?

And the answer to that one, I believe, was best articulated by Joseph Heller, when asked about all the interwoven themes of his novel Catch-22. Heller interrupted the question, saying there was only one theme:

They can do anything that we can't prevent them from doing.

Once again it really is that simple.

What can we do to prevent it? That's why they do it.

As for the question of how Karl Rove knows what the terrorists intend to do, I was wondering the same thing about John McCain a few days ago when he made essentially the same statement, and three possibilities came to mind:

1) He's clairvoyant.
2) He's bluffing.
3) He's in cahoots with the terrorists.

Let's look at this with dispassionate logic: If we dismiss the possibility of clairvoyance, the only available options amount to treason in one way or another. In other words, either he's bluffing -- threatening terrorism for political advantage -- or else ... well we don't want to think about that, do we?

Seriously: What difference does it make? The statements made by Rove, McCain, Cheney and Bush (among others) -- not just recently but continuously since 9/11, and especially whenever they feel threatened -- amount to an ultimatum: a threat of terrorist action against the United States in the event that Congress, reflecting the will of the American people, forces an end to this war-of-choice, which (apparently we were supposed to forget) was started deliberately on the strength of a pack of carefully constructed lies and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising.

But we haven't forgotten. And we really can dismiss the possibility of clairvoyance. Because if Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. are clairvoyant, 9/11 would never have happened unless they wanted it to.

Therefore we know exactly what these threats represent: a protection racket of the vilest sort:

Give us full control of your country -- the budget, the legal system, the military, the works! -- or else you will be attacked by terrorists -- again!

And so. The treason is obvious. The Guillotine Department is standing by. What are we waiting for?

Kucinich To Introduce Articles Of Impeachment Against Cheney

Cool news for cold dudes from Michael Roston at The Raw Story:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, has selected a date to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

A source who asked to remain anonymous told RAW STORY that the articles of impeachment would be introduced next week.

I don't know how much ice this will cut but I like it a lot already.

Mary Ann Akers reported at her blog, "The Sleuth," on Monday that the Congressman had sent a 'dear colleague' letter to fellow Members of Congress informing them of his plan to introduce the articles of impeachment against the Vice President.
...

Multiple congressional offices confirmed to RAW STORY that they had received the letter, but none had been apprised of the impeachable offenses with which the Ohio Democrat would charge the Vice President.

You can read the rest (and explore the live links too) at RAW STORY. And I urge you to do so.

As for impeachment, you know my position on that already, don't you?

'So Many Wrongs To Right': Helen Thomas At McDaniel College

Helen Thomas got right to the point in her address at McDaniel College in Westminister, MD, last week, as you can see in this video:

William Hughes reported on the event for Media Monitors Network. Excerpts from his report follow:

“How primitive can you get to start a new century with a war--a war of choice? We have a President [George W. Bush Jr.] who decided to attack a country that did nothing to us. I say: ‘Cry the beloved country!’ So, we have so many wrongs to right before our country gets back its honor. Hopefully, the American people will not accept this President’s primitive drive for war without end. What can he be thinking? More than that: Why do Americans tolerate such a dumbing down of our country? The American people will soon say: Enough is enough! It is wrong to ask the ultimate sacrifice of friend and foe without a good reason--an acceptable reason. We have yet to hear the real reason why we went into Iraq. I say: Truth took a holiday!”
...

“President Bush struck a match across the Middle East, which is always known as a tinder box. He invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We now occupy that destroyed country and we’re warning them if they don’t shape up and do what we tell them to do, we might just pick up our marbles and go home. They should be so lucky. Who are we? What have we become? Whose war is this? Thousands are dead, thousands are wounded. And to this day, we can’t get a straight answer on why we attacked a Third World country. We had a choke hold on Saddam Hussein. He couldn’t make a move. We had the tightest economic sanctions, satellite surveillance. We were bombing Iraq, every other night in the ‘No-Fly’ zone--so-called. Now, we have had four years of this.”
...

“We know that terrorism has to be fought,” Ms. Thomas said. “We are the target. But, first we have to find out: What is terrorism? What causes it? Is it politics? Religion? Is it our foreign policy that has compelled this hostility against our country? It never existed before. We are no longer the most admired country, one to be emulated in the world. This is the time to begin thinking about peaceful solutions to set our world right again...You cannot shoot people in their own country to liberate them... As you can tell, I’m against the invasion and occupation of Iraq because it is illegal, immoral and unconscionable to wage a war against a country that did nothing to us. The war is in its fifth year, now, and the killing still goes on. I’m sorry to be such a downer. But, it is your world we are talking about. No man is an island.”

“We have a President more and more ‘isolated’ and ‘speaking of victory in Iraq.’ He has two years to go and he has a right to worry about his legacy...There is no other place to go, so one should always want to try to do the right thing. But, time is running out...The President is ignoring the will of the people to cut our losses. They are keeping up the charade at the White House that we were ‘invited’ into Iraq. I remember asking Ari Fleischer, Bush’s former White House press secretary: “If they asked us to leave, would we leave?”

Ms. Thomas emphasized: “There is no question that ‘9/11’ has brought on a dramatic change in our country. For alleged security, we seem willing to forego our privacy and our great sense of justice. We have allowed ourselves to go to war based on untruths. No WMD. No ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. No threat from a Third World country. We have permitted ourselves to be wiretapped, our e-mails pried into, our mail opened. We have tolerated torture of suspects and prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and at other prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, where human beings are humiliated. Surely, that is not worthy of a great country. We’ve allowed Congress to take away the ancient right of Habeas Corpus, which goes back to Magna Carta...We pickup people with dark skin. We imprison them. We never charge them or try them. We keep them in limbo and send them to secret prisons to be tortured and interrogated. Is that America?”
...

“We are spending our national treasury on war, while 48 million people in this country have no health insurance. Children go to school with no breakfast. Schools are falling down. Government programs to alleviate the suffering are being cut. And yet the biggest tax cuts go to ‘the richest people’ in our country. Surely, something is wrong with this picture.”

As a matter of fact, many things are wrong with this picture. And if we ever begin to put it right, we will owe no small debt of gratitude to Helen Thomas, who remained a journalist while most of the people around her were becoming stenographers.